from the international deal that limited iran's nuclear ambitions. the president has said iran could avert sanctions by agreeing to abandon its nuclear programmes. iran's president has accused him of psychological warfare. rick gates, a key prosecution witness at the trial of paul manafort, former trump campaign chairman, has testified that together they filed false tax returns and tried to hide millions of dollars in foreign banks. paul manafort has pleaded not guilty to charges of bank fraud and tax evasion. nearly 100 people are now confirmed dead in sunday's powerful earthquake on lombok island. at least 20,000 people are stranded or have lost their homes. aid agencies in indonesia say the priority is to provide shelter and medical assistance. now on bbc news, hardtalk‘s stephen sackur speaks to the dutch mep, sophie in‘t veld. welcome to hardtalk,
i'm stephen sackur. british prime minister theresa may is running out of time to avoid the brexit cliff edge. her proposals for a post—brexit trade deal with brussels got short shrift from the eu's chief negotiator. she seems to be hoping to get more joy from some of europe's national leaders. but with every passing day, the prospect for a no—deal, potentially chaotic brexit grows more real. my guest is the dutch mep sophie in ‘t veld, deputy to the european pa rliament‘s chief negotiator. is brexit brinkmanship a game no—one can win? sophie in ‘t veld in brussels,
welcome to hardtalk. hello. you follow the brexit negotiations very, very closely. are you comfortable with the fact that when theresa may and her government came out with their big proposal, the so—called white paper, their vision for what a post—brexit trade deal with the eu could look like, it was, effectively, dismissed by the eu's, the eu commission's chief negotiator, michel barnier, with barely a second glance? well, dismissed. i think mr barnier made it very clear that we are happy
that there are proposals on the table. that's a start, that's necessary. he also made it very clear that some of the proposals clearly do not fit in, or do not correspond to the rules of the internal market. but there's clearly a basis to start the talks. and hopefully finalise the talks in time and try and avoid a cliff edge scenario. you say there is clearly a basis for talks. i'm struggling to see that basis because michel barnier, from the beginning of this process up until today, appears convinced that britain is still, to use the phrase always wheeled out by the commission, cherry picking, trying to have its cake and eat it too. all those cliches we've been hearing for the last 18 months, they're still being used in brussels. there are lots of cliches being used on all sides. the reality is we have to sit down and try and come to an agreement more
or less by october. that is the reality. i think on the side of the european union, contrary to what some of the media are reporting, there is a lot of good will. people do want a result but clearly there are limits. what we are not going to do is re—negotiate the rules of the internal market or the european union. but when michel barnier says, with scepticism, and this is a quote from him, "the uk seems to want to keep free movement of goods between us but not of people and services," as though, in his view, there's an indivisibility to those pillars of the eu single market and he will not accept any effort to make a difference between goods and services. are you with him or not? it's not his view. it's a fact. that's the way the internal market was built. and what strikes me in this whole debate and also the way it's been displayed in the uk media,
or at least to the extent that i've seen it, is that uk, 45 years, has been one of the main champions of the internal market. one of the prime architects of the internal market. so you know what the rules of the game are because you were actually leading the construction of the internal market. so i think it's a bit strange to now say, "oh, but we can unpick it and try and select the bits that we like," because that is not the way that it works. but why not think creatively? why not actually consider the possibility that a little bit of unpicking, as you put it, of the rules, might actually be productive not just for one side but for both sides? rather than this be a lose—lose, it may end up being win—win. a respected analyst in the financial times recently, martin sandhu, said, "look, let's get real. you know, yes it's complicated, the white paper and yes, the british government will probably have to make more concessions." in essence, he says, the eu...
this is a quote from him, "the eu promises to treat the uk as a third country, a third party after brexit so it should, by standing ready to accept an improved chequers white paper offer and then declaring a resounding victory. " he's basically saying there's a lot in the white paper that the eu, if it would only get away from a sort of puritanical stance, should regard as good news. what you call puritanical i would actually call the rule of law. we have treaties and i believe that when you sign up to a treaty you have to respect the terms of the treaty until people decide to change the treaty. until we do that we have the internal market, the eu treaties. this is a rules—based entity. again, the uk has been one of its prime architects. and i think that this is... you know, we're not starting from scratch here. the uk, which is still a member of the eu, has chosen
to leave the european union. i am one of those who regrets that, however the british people in majority have decided to leave the european union. so now we have to make sure there is an orderly withdrawal and we have to limit the damage as much as possible. and then we have to discuss future relations. but compromise... what we are not... but compromise can't all be one way, can it? sorry, there is no compromise. the uk is leaving the eu. so where's the compromise? you wanted to leave, the majority... the compromise, if i may say so, it seems to me that the compromise comes in finding a deal and a process for that leaving of the eu which does the least damage to both sides. that is where the compromise comes from and that is where you may need to be creative about these rules that you regard as important. again, i think it's ironic that the brits, who actually were pushing the internal market, building the internal market, are now reproaching the european union for actually protecting the internal market.
for us, the integrity of the internal market is very important and i think that is also our interest in the future. they have made their choice. this is what the tory party, or at least a large part of the tory party wanted. it's not for us now to solve the problems of the tory party. it's actually for politicians on all sides, including in the uk, to begin being honest. the whole idea that you can have brexit and you can cherry pick... this whole. .. people are using the sentence, "we're going to make brexit a success." why aren't they honest and say there is no such thing as a successful brexit because it will always hurt and it will hurt many people, but it will hurt primarily people in the united kingdom. i find that very sad. what they should do is not expect the eu to undo the eu and the internal market,
what they must do is be honest to their own voters. there is a sense in which, with your stance and some would describe it as intransigent. i know you reject that. but your absolute insistence on the laws and the process that the eu has established, you risk a form of mutually assured destruction, don't you? because yes, a chaotic cliff edge crash out brexit is going to be undeniably very damaging to the uk economy, but it's equally going to be very damaging to economies across the european union, not least the netherlands economy. if you would only show some stability, you can avoid some of that damage to yourself. actually, i think my voters... you were talking about politics and elections.. my voters expect us to protect the integrity of the internal market because in the long—term, that is what will actually assure our prosperity.
don't your voters expect you to protect theirjobs? and in the netherlands you are going to lose many tens of thousands ofjobs according to the imf, because of what will come with a hard brexit. this is all part of a kind of panicky blame game. brexiteers understanding that brexit is not going to take them into heaven and they're trying to blame it now on others, saying that brexit is a really good idea but it is being badly executed because, you know, those europeans are so intransigent. no. brexit was never a good idea, it was always going to hurt. we have to limit the damage. in the long—term, the prosperity of the european union and jobs in the european union depend on the integrity of the internal market. and we're not going unpick it. but i return to the raw data put out by the imf. of course, it's a little bit speculative, but one must respect the strength of their economics. they say that if there is a cliff edge, a hard crash—out brexit, that will cost the eu as a whole probably around i.5%,
if not more, of gdp. some countries will be much worse, like ireland who could lose 4% of gdp. it will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, possibly over a million, across the eu as a whole. some countries in particular, and this is where we get to you, some countries in particular, like the netherlands, are extraordinary vulnerable because of the strength of your trading relationship with the uk. yes. but we also have trading relations with the eu internal market. i think if you make the same calculation for the disintegration of the internal market you would get figures that are even worse. i think to now one—sidedly try and make the eu responsible for the fallout of brexit is a bit the world on its head. look, they were politicians... you referred to borisjohnson earlier and some other politicians who have really behaved like populists. they have told people that brexit
was going to bring them heaven. that was simply never true. brexit was always going to hurt. and it depends on two sides but certainly also the uk side. let's not forget, the vote took place over two years ago. only now we have the white paper with some proposals on the table. it has always been an internal problem of the tory party and... i don't think that this is what david cameron had in mind when he called for a referendum. let me ask you this, if i may. you're sitting there in brussels and, obviously, you follow this process quite closely. but the british government appears to have changed tack in recent days. the commission is, by and large, on its summer holidays so theresa may and the foreign secretaryjeremy hunt are going around capitals and talking to leaders and foreign ministers across europe, trying to tell them, look, there is a looming tragedy. these are the words ofjeremy hunt,
"there is a looming tragedy here" if the uk crashes out of the eu without a deal, according to mr hunt that will be damaging to the eu as well as britain. in his words, "a tragedy". it strikes me that some national leaders worried about employment and the state of their own economies may be much more receptive to that message than michel barnier and possibly you. mr barnier is negotiating on behalf of the eu and he has the support of the member states, that is very clear. none of the member states has said he is not speaking on behalf of my country. well, that's true, they haven't said that, but if i may, some member states like malta, italy, like austria, have suggested that there should be a focus on trying to find compromise. everybody is open to compromise. but a compromise can never, ever include the disintegration of the internal market. the integrity of the internal market is not on the agenda of the negotiations. that must be very clear. is there an element
of bluff in this? i notice the netherlands has made a public announcement that 1,000 new customs officers are being trained to deal with the potential fallout from a no deal brexit. i know there's discussion in the netherlands about what it will mean for the agriculture sector and other sectors that would be most affected. is the netherlands government really now thinking no deal will happen or is there an element of bluff to all of this? on both sides of the english channel? i don't think there's any bluff here. we've been very clear about our position. it's not rocket science. we are the european union, we have the internal market. we will negotiate with the uk about our future relationship, but we will not re—negotiate the eu because, yes, brexit will be damaging, even if there is no cliff edge, no crashing out of the eu.
if there is a crashing out of the eu, it will be even more damaging. but unpicking the internal market will be the worst scenario and that we're not going to do. if you say bluff... i've noticed that in recent weeks, in the british media, and you're actually making the same point here, trying to kind of intimidate the eu into, "oh, if you do not accept our terms and it will be terrible for you. i think we should be... maybe it is time for little bit of honesty in politics and maybe people should have been told before the brexit referendum what reality was going to be like. now, the vote has taken place, that's very clear. that's the situation we have to deal with, and it will hurt. but we're not going to undo the internal market. far be it from me to intimidate anybody, i am looking at the the reality of what is happening. not in terms of economics, but also in terms of security. talking about reality, i think what is happening is reality is sinking in now, even with those
like borisjohnson who have been promoting brexit and they are trying to put the blame on somebody else. but if they were honest, i think they should man up and take responsibility for what they have achieved. i'll try to switch focus onto security issues. you say that there is absolutely four square unity amongst the 27 members of the eu as they approach brexit, but on the security issue there clearly isn't complete unity. we had the german interior minister horst seehofer saying recently that he believes it is vital that the uk is kept in because of various security structures that involve it in so much of the important work concerning policing and security across europe. that is a very different message from michel barnier, again it suggests to me that in some capitals in europe there is a grave concern about what a no—deal brexit could mean in security terms for the rest of europe.
of course there is grave concern anywhere, also in the european parliament. i understand what mr seehofer wants to say, but i think he said it the wrong way. the fact that we will want to have very close co—operation with the uk, i think is undisputed, everybody wants that, but we have to look very carefully at the terms. it is clear, the uk will not be a part of the eu any more, so it can not be a part of eu institutions. that is clear. that should not prevent us from having co—operation and exchanges of information, but clearly there has to be agreement on legal safeguards, data protection, fundamental rights, right to a fair trial, all of the regular safeguards that you have and that we need to negotiate. a quick final thought on brexit before i broaden this out a bit. there is a growing sense among some
policymakers in europe that what will actually happen, rather than a no—deal brexit, there will yet be another moment of fudge and kicking the can down the road come this autumn and early spring of next year. it seems there is a feeling that the two sides will not be able to do much more than establish a withdrawal agreement and only the very broadest notion of where they might go in terms of future trading relationships and most of the detail will be left off any document and there will be a transition agreement and during those two years or so, the hope is somehow they will get to a consensual agreement. is that what is going to happen in the long run? look, i haven't got a crystal ball. there is no map, there's no blueprint, we are in uncharted territory, we don't know.
all i can hope for is that we will find an agreement, hopefully on time, by october. again, i think contrary to what was suggested earlier, the european union were united and very open to compromise that does not entail renegotiating the basis of the eu. we are open to compromise and everybody i think is aware of the seriousness of the situation and the urgent need to find solutions on time. before we end, i do want to broaden this out, it is interesting to me that throughout this interview you have stressed the unity of the eu 27, but in a way it seems brexit is a distraction from the much bigger challenge facing the eu, which is that there is a growing strain of populist nationalism rife right across from italy in western europe to hungary, poland and elsewhere
in eastern europe. it is a movement that is challenging the basic, sort of notions of european sovereignty in a way that goes far beyond brexit, would you agree? well, yes. and actually, i think european integration isn't even at the top of their political agenda. they clearly have an agenda which is much more focusing on issues like values, like equality, pluralism, the basic rules of democracy. it is a very authoritarian strand of populism, very nationalist. if i may say, it is a strand which is all about the nation state and the power and importance of the nation state. so when it comes to profound eu challenges like a common approach to migration, or indeed the future of the eurozone, because let's face it, that hasn't been sorted out satisfactorily. when it comes to those pan—european challenges, there is no coherence to the eu at all. actually, no that is not true.
the anti—eu nationalists are not the majority. i also see that the pro—european forces are being mobilised because they are beginning to realise that they have to act, and i would also like to stress that yes, the european union, we are not...we have a way of doing things. it is always about compromise, consensus, it is a bit slow, it is not very sexy and heroic, you know, the way that we take decisions. if you look at what the eu has gone through over the last ten years or so — an economic crisis, refugees, terrorism, now we have to deal with a world run by people like trump, putin, we are facing brexit. and you know what, the european union is still there, it is strong, it hasn't fallen apart and popular support is growing. no doubt the european union is still there but whether it is coherent is another matter.
in a sense, the most powerful politicalfigure in the eu is emmanuel macron in france, he has a strong vision of deepening european sovereignty, but frankly most other european leaders are not there any more. the integrationist impulse is over. even your own prime minister in holland responding to macron said "integration for integration‘s sake will only harm future public support for the european union." so when you tell me there is a clear direction of travel, there isn't. there has never been integration for integration‘s sake. never. it has been integration in order to respond to the challenges of today, and the reality of course is that the nation state, or the national state in itself cannot respond any more to the challenges of today. we need a strong european union, i see support for european integration amongst young people, that is the next generation of leaders, is very strong. they are becoming more active, more engaged, more mobilised, so actually i am quite optimistic. frankly, looking at brexit
as an example, all one can say is that there are increasing deep divisions between demographics, different age groups across europe, not necessarily helping the eu. a final thought, the guy you work closely with, guy verhofstadt, in the eu parliament says that actually brexit is a sign of failure. it has to be accepted as a failure for the eu and part of the bigger picture, which is relevant to what we have been discussing. would you accept that? well i think, in political terms, i don't know, but i would feel it is a sense of failure as well. at the same time it is also serving as a wake—up call, both in the uk and the european union. i think trump is another wake—up call and we have a few others, like putin. but i think the wake—up call is working, people are being mobilised, they are speaking up. support for the european union is growing and it has never been a linear process.
you really think that that message of yours is as valid and coherent in budapest, warsaw and rome as it is sitting there in brussels? i think so, because you can see everywhere, of course in one country it will be stronger than in another, but i actually think it is not so much the european union that is in trouble, it is the nation state which is much weaker now in times of globalisation, in the digital age where state power is territorial power, but in the digital era, what is territorial power? so we can see it is an open world and we can see that it is actually the nation states struggling with these challenges, whereas the european union is actually growing stronger and has much better answers for the future. all right. we have to end there, but sophie in ‘t veld, i thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk.
thank you. my pleasure. hello there. today we see the last of the hot and humid conditions across the south—east before it's all change by the time we reach wednesday. we'll maintain a north—west/south—east split for the next 2a hours, that's because we've got a weak weather front across northern and western areas, largely clear skies and a very warm and muggy start in the south—east, whereas further north and west, slightly fresher and there will be more cloud around, perhaps a spot of drizzle and some hill fog too. so it means for tuesday morning it starts off relatively cloudy across many northern and western areas, but the cloud tending to thin and break. sunny spells developing quite widely.
will be breezier across the north—west, but again, across the south and east, another hot and sunny day. you can see the deep orange colours unfolding there into the afternoon with highs again 29 to maybe 31 degrees. further west, though, in those yellow colours, it's going to be feeling a little bit cooler. something typical for the time of year, 18 to 22 celsius. and then late on tuesday evening and overnight, we could see a cluster of thundery showers move up from the near continent, grazing past south—east england and east anglia. bit of uncertainty as to how far westwards these will get, but it's all tied in with this weather front, which is going to continue to move its way eastwards during the course of thursday night. and then by wednesday morning, we lose the hot and humid air from the south—east and then we're all into the cooler air mass. for wednesday it's going to feel very different to what we've been used to, particularly in the south—east.
some sunshine around, but some showers as well, particularly across western areas, some of them could be heavy and thundery. there's your temperatures, 17 to 2a celsius. a good 8 degrees lower in the south—east than what we've been used to on monday and tuesday. 0n into thursday then, most of the showers will be across the north—west corner of the country. sunny spells elsewhere, but there is a chance of some thundery rain moving up from the near continent, again grazing the south—east. but it could stay over the near continent, south—east could stay dry. and again, temperatures around the seasonal average but feeling cooler than what we've been used to. friday not a bad looking day, largely dry. some showers in the north. but then later on in the day, the skies are going to cloud over across western areas with increasing breeze ahead of a weather system. now, this is something we haven't seen much of during the summer period, but it looks like it's going to be quite a vigorous area of low pressure hurtling in across our shores just in time for the weekend. it could deliver a spell of pretty heavy rain at times, and also strong winds. could be touching gale force. so saturday's looking very unsettled with wet and windy weather moving through. for sunday, though, a little bit brighter with sunshine and showers, but it's going to feel much
cooler over the weekend. this is the briefing, i'm david eades. our top story: iran's president accuses america of unleashing psychological warfare as president trump signs off on the re—imposition of sanctions. nearly 100 people are now confirmed dead in sunday's powerful earthquake on lombok island. indonesian aid agencies say more than 20,000 are stranded. saudi arabia's national airline suspends flights to toronto as the detention of women activists causes a diplomatic row with canada. big business question today — what will the re—application of the us sanctions against iraq mean, not least for ordinary iranians?